Covid is just a symptom of bigger underlying epidemic:
It's an epidemic of depression and anxiety ravaging through society, which doesn't spare anybody.
I became interested in Sweden's approach of not doing anything at all , per the John Hopkins University website COVID deaths in Sweden are 15,000.
15k in 2 years, now how many months/weeks were trimmed off those people's lives? Note that I said months/weeks, not years.
Back in the 1990s or the 2000s we'd have not even noticed that COVID even existed, not to mention the 1970s and 1980s.
How many COVIDs came and went through the human history without us noticing?
Diseases and virus didn't change. We did. We are much more depressed and anxious.
The end all be all seems to be existing, not living.
To avoid any downside risk in order to stay around. If you plan your life with the goal of staying around, pretty soon you would not want to stay around any longer.
Sweden didn't do nothing. Most of the streets were empty for all of 2020. Everyone that could work from home started doing so. People avoided social contact and travel. It imposed entry bans, and 68% of its population are now fully vaccinated, 80% ages 16 and up.
I think people underestimate social awareness, even if there is no official restrictions, people have their own worries and take their own precautions.
This makes it very hard to actually learn anything useful from Sweden's policy in my opinion. Because we're not so much interested with the official policies, more so with the actual behavior of the people and what worked or didn't with regards to that.
Not that I disagree with you, but I'd guess that social awareness is a product of having a trustful sources of information coming from trustworthy and capable leaders/government. It seems to me that handling of covid crisis is clearly correlated with how well people of a certain country do trust and respect their elected leaders.
Edit: It all reminds me of an excercise from some teamwork and leadership class, where there was a given logical problem to be solved in 45 minutes between teammates. And no matter how smart, proactive, arrogant or quiet members they had, all the teams failed to solve a problem. The issue was everybody participating in solving a problem which turned into 45 hour debate, rather than having a leader coordinating the path to solution.
It may be an oversimplifaction, but when you have a crisis which you don't know how to solve, you can at least try to handle it the best you can. Without trust in leadership, it will be chaotic.
Team programming competitions are like that, and basically the strategy is to give everybody on the team 10 minutes to read all tasks and choose the one they are confident they can solve and then work in parallel. No time for coordination overhead. If you talk about everything you won't finish even one task.
But COVID response is nothing like that - we've had months before it got to Europe and over a year at this point. So I don't think it's a good analogy.
My point was about how well can a society work when there is mutual trust between leadership and followers, not about solving a problem efficiently. Although I did go off the subject with the anecdote.
What is your take on handling the Covid crisis in Europe?
I don't think trust and coordination is the main problem. There were some mistakes caused by things we didn't knew about the pandemic early on, but most of the things experts said were correct, and most regular people treated the restrictions seriously early on. Governments simply had other priorities than listening to experts.
For example I've seen a lot of people taking the restrictions seriously early in 2020 in my country (Poland), but the restrictions often made no sense (they banned people from going to forests but never banned them from going to churches and kept schools working most of the time for political reasons, ministry of health first said that masks aren't necessary because they do nothing against covid, then he made masks mandatory, prime minister asked people to stay at home and closed down the economy when we had 100 cases in the country, then because of elections gave away free holidays trips and said Covid is behind us when we had thousands of cases, president said he doesn't believe in vaccination to get antivaxer support before elections, then again they introduced very strict (and random) restrictions, then banned abortion agaisnt the public opinion knowing full well it will cause mass protests in the middle of the 3rd wave in autumn 2020 - then healthcare was completely paralyzed and 60 000 surplus people died in a 38 000 000 country in a few months).
Basically limiting the loss of lives caused by covid was never a priority for the government - the priority was to keep as much support as possible, show that they are doing something, get favors done for their political vassals and get politically ahead of the opposition at whatever cost.
So I really can't be surprised by all the antivaxers and tinfoilers that showed up after all of that :/
>he doesn't believe in vaccination to get antivaxer support before elections
Just, wow!
Essentially, the same thing here in Croatia. Our people have a wide spectre of ideologic views with a very different take on crisis, out of which currently very few trusts the government.
In the initial wave, government made very good results with keeping covid numbers down, and they were very widely accepted and respected. Even though there were some non-sense, people were glad just to know government reacting effitiently and strategically.
But the government lost all the trust now with promoting vaccination with some very odd restrictions and suprisingly stupid rhetoric, without honesty or explanations. There is probably much more truth to why everything just went down the drain, but I would say the main goal is to force out vaccination with no exception.
I do not respect or support our government ideologically nor due to their competence. The crisis would just be more managable if they had our trust right now, but they've lost it and I don't see it turning back. And I do not see how will they handle the crisis with so little support.
I may have sounded like I was proposing blind trust, rather than trust in return of transparency, honesty etc from leaders/governement. Because in essence I think we are talking about the same thing.
Why do you think we wouldn't have noticed it in the 90's and 2000's? When hospitals fill up, people are definitely going to notice. There were flu outbreaks in the 60's and 70's and people noticed.
When comparing "different approaches" you need to look at many factors: population density, environment (average temperature), living conditions (like multi-generational families living together.) Countries are not directly comparable for this reason.
> There were flu outbreaks in the 60's and 70's and people noticed
No, they didn't. The population back then wasn't as depressed and anxious as today's population.
They didn't extrapolate figures and trends and charts. They were not bombarded by news on 5 different screen devices.
They'd notice when 5,6,7 or even 10 people they knew, and in the same age/health cohort as them would become incapacitated for more than 4 weeks, but in order to really notice it the same amount of people would have to be dying from the disease.
How many people you know became incapacitated for more than 4 weeks because of COVID? 2 years into it how many died?
I suspect neither of us were around then, so we can't really say, on a personal level, whether we would've noticed the 1968 flu pandemic. But the fact is millions of people died, and millions more got sick. Television and news papers were obviously around then, so people would've been talking about it. We are definitely more connected today, but to claim it "would not have been noticed" is an exaggeration.
As for Covid, I personally know at least 5 people who got sick, 1 was out of work for 4 weeks, though none died. How about you?
Certainly, tons of stuff happened during that time. However, my parents actually did mention the 1968 flu pandemic (though it was prompted by covid discussions, it wasn't just out of the blue.)
But yeah, you're probably right... if things keep up like this, we won't go back to normal due to anxiety and fear. I can see this going on for additional years.
Only if we let it. We seriously have no clue to the bad effects of shutting down and limiting our society in this manner.
In my country we had a serious flu in 2017/18 that nobody remembers anymore. Back then the number of hospitalized were more than double of the current numbers.
And yet here we are with new restrictions going into effect. It's time to say enough is enough and elect politicians that can treat Corona as a disease we have to live with.
The cultural trace of the Spanish flu is remarkably thin, too.
1918 is remembered as the year when the Great War ended and several empires disintegrated, even though the flu almost certainly killed more people than the war, and in much shorter time.
And yet, books, movies and songs about the Spanish flu are rare.
We definitely noticed the 2009-2010 swine flu pandemic, it just wasn't as deadly as COVID. Most pandemics in past memory have been minor in nature. We likely were aware of them, but didn't feel their impact because they caused mild illness or were limited in scope (eg, with SARS, ebola) and didn't directly impact people's lives. COVID does impact people's lives and the closest referent we have is the Spanish flu in 1918 which is far outside of anyone's historical memory. I'm not necessarily disputing your point about depression and anxiety, sure those may have increased as well, but COVID isn't anything like the other pandemics we've had in recent memory.
The Spanish flu of 1918 killed ~675k people in the US [0] and the US population was 105M [1], so the Spanish flu killed off a bit more than 0.6% of the entire US population, or about 1 in 150 people. Despite massive improvements in sanitation and ability to distance from others, COVID has still killed a bit more than 0.2% of the entire US population in the past 2 years. These pandemics are comparable.
> Honestly you are comparing a firecracker to a nuclear weapon, and if you want to do that, then you have to produce the proofs.
Only if you've already decided COVID is a firecracker. Most people, especially early on, had no pandemic in their memories that occurred at the scale of COVID and were stuck figuring out exactly what their attitude should be towards it and how to interpret the government health interventions. The Spanish flu was a crucial referent for what might be in store.
Even then, look at it from a the perspective of someone in the US:
The estimated percentage of the US population that died to the 1918 flu is 0.64% (using the estimate of 675k from the 1918 flu) vs 0.23% for COVID so far (eg 770k US deaths). By those numbers the Spanish flu may have been worse, but for someone in the US it is natural to look at them and compare them. Medicine has improved considerably since 1918 and much of the anxiety around COVID revolves around health care collapsing and people no longer being able to receive care in which case the death rate would increase.
We definitely noticed the Spanish flu and COVID is occurring on a similar scale, it isn't just anxiety.
Gilbert Burns and Diego Sanchez of UFC are examples of fit and healthy bodies reacting differently to this disease in the extreme. Prolonged lockdown conditions on people like Giblert Burns, who experienced mild flulike symtoms, will experience knock on effects such as risk of heart disease and diabetes due to not enough exercise of the heart and circulation. Diego Sanchez has spots on his lungs and bloodclots in his legs.
> The estimated percentage of the US population that died to the 1918 flu is 0.64% (using the estimate of 675k from the 1918 flu) vs 0.23% for COVID so far (eg 770k US deaths)
1) 675k in 1918? make it 1M, perhaps more. Also every COVID death is a COVID death, a flu death back then could be ascribed to anything. People say Nigeria and Brazil and India COVID figures aren't reliable, how is 1918 US stats reliable?
2) But the most important statistic is number of years trimmed off the life of every victim. 1918 flu trimmed as many years as the WW1, perhaps more as it attacked the same cohort. How many months is COVID trimming off the lives of people who perish?
The most important thing here is that we're still in the middle of the COVID pandemic and don't know quite a bit about it whereas the Spanish flu has ended. We don't, for example, know about the longterm effects of COVID and whether it reduces life expectancy of individuals, especially those that were hospitalized.
The COVID death rates do skew heavily towards those older, but the hospitalization rates are less skewed and if we are no longer able to provide healthcare for those who have severe cases, then the overall death rate will be less skewed. There have been multiple instances of healthcare facilities getting overwhelmed and much of public policy has been oriented around ensuring there is enough healthcare capacity to handle COVID cases + everyone else that needs to go to the hospital. The fact that there is a very real risk of not being able to receive emergency medical care because of this pandemic, especially during the surges prior to widespread vaccination, underscores that the pandemic response isn't just a product of anxiety.
All those problems were present in 1957 flu epidemic, the 1968/69 epidemic the 1977/79 flu epidemic
People were just less anxious and depressed back then, especially according to recorded stats the most severe was the 68/69 it was basically the peak of huge human gathering, between marches, students protests, Woodstock, Summer of love, Beatlemania, surf culture. In short nobody gave a darn about the flu.
It seems to me, people nowadays are more concerned with existing that living, and somehow have convinced themselves to hold out long enough and they'd be able to reach immortality.
it's like they don't know that sooner or later they'd die anyway and that the secret is to live in the moment and enjoy life , stumbling on their way to the grave with a smile on their face due to the fun they had along the way.
> All those problems were present in 1957 flu epidemic, the 1968/69 epidemic the 1977/79 flu epidemic
Those were all influenza A sub-types viruses which we've had experience with. The closest we've come to COVID is SARS/MERS both of which had significantly high case fatality rates (~10% for SARS, 33% for MERS), but neither of those resulted in a pandemic of the same scale. Even then, early COVID symptoms puzzled doctors and there is now mounting evidence that it isn't a pulmonary disease but a cardiovascular one so its long term effects aren't clear. At the start it wasn't even clear we'd develop a successful vaccine for COVID, whereas we've had plenty of experience with vaccines for influenza A subtypes.
> it's like they don't know that sooner or later they'd die anyway and that the secret is to live in the moment and enjoy life , stumbling on their way to the grave with a smile on their face due to the fun they had along the way.
Sure, some people need to let up a little and accept that the risk of death is inherent in life. But most people are and have been figuring out what level of risk is acceptable to them given a novel threat to them where the risk is uncertain.
> Those were all influenza A sub-types viruses which we've had experience with.
Let's be serious. Most doctors back then couldn't tell the flu from a coronavirus, and it was probably for the better.
You are taking the present-day degree of information and discounting it back at a much too generous rate.
People, even doctors, were all but alarmed in those years of flu epidemic, even though people died, and young people at that (the flu is a notorious killer of babies and young people)
They were not alarmed because in the great scheme of things nobody died. Most importantly nobody or almost nobody they knew died, so the process of extrapolation and panic didn't start, because those people perceived stuff which didn't happen in their circle of acquiantaces as not relevant to them, which is true even today, but we forgot about it.
> Honestly you are comparing a firecracker to a nuclear weapon, and if you want to do that, then you have to produce the proofs.
The relatively few deaths from Covid are a testament to the effectiveness of the preventive measures and vaccines, not an indication that it is a firecracker. Hospitals would have absolutely been overrun (remember the "flatten the curve" slogans?) and people, unable to get treatment, would have died at 2 to 5 times the current rate.
We're at 5 million deaths worldwide and counting (you call that a firecracker??), it could have been a lot higher.
> As far as I remember in Germany the average years lost were 13 years. I would love to know where you got your numbers.
That study claiming 13 years had a big asterisk: "those dying from COVID-19 may be an at-risk population whose remaining life expectancy is shorter than the average person’s remaining life expectancy. This methodological concern is likely to be valid, and consequently our estimate of the total YLL due to COVID-19 may be an overestimate"...DUH!!!
> And btw. what is the world view if someone dying 4 years prematurely (on average) is something that one can state as OK?
At this rate we are ALL going to lose 4 years of our lives with eternal lockdowns and travel restrictions and all this wheel which keeps spinning.
It's time to do what Sweden did, now we can roll out a new mRNA vaccine in 100 days if needed be, we have the Merck and the Pfizer pill.
It's time to go on with our lives , again , before we ALL lose 4 years, not just the immunocompromised and the overtly obese.
Besides, those categories who are handicapped are able to live a life with dignity because there is an infrastructure providing for them, that infrastructure has come to a halt, so they are losing those 12-48 months of life anyway .
Thing is, somebody who is 12-48 months away from the grave is susceptible to a ligth breeze, so if it's not COVID taking them it's the effect of lockdowns and the failure of the infrastructure.
Interesting take. I have lost nothing for example. I gained a lot over the last 1.5 years.
I am vaccinated. I keep my distance. I do everything to protect those that need societies' help to do so (medical personnel, people that can't be vaccinated like people on chemo or pregnant women in the first trimester).
I additionally used the time not stuck in senseless commute to create a side business. Started to learn a new language and helped local businesses to grow their online presence.
Additionally as foster home we provided shelter for about 25 cats that now live in loving families.
I think it depends on how one views these times. For me it is a massive win.
Of course, if one thinks that work is the be all , end all to life then they'd find themselves rooting for endless lockdowns.
But there is more to life than work, people want to be able to go to a stadium, a club, to fly to Vegas or Macao to get shitfaced and play poker against the pros, they want to be able to go to resturants without having to wait half n hour for the vaccination check, want to be able to fly to Dubai or the Seychelles or Maldives or Aruba for the winter
Matter or fact the vast majority of people who consider themselves work-a-holic they are such because in their minds they know that they always have the option to unwind and do all the above things if needed be.
Remove that option and all of a sudden their mental health goes down drammatically
Is original antigenic sin due to prior vaccination or natural infection a concern for developing a new vaccine for this variant? Or perhaps the B.1.1.529 spike is so different that the original antibodies won't bind to it, even ineffectively? Or is there a way to design the new vaccine explicitly so that antibodies produced by prior strains can't bind the new antigens?
From what I understand, there's no way to predict the pros and cons of the original antigenic sin. You will be biased against the strain you first receive, either as a vaccine or by catching the virus itself.
What we don't know is which of these strains 20 years from now will make a resurgence. When that happens, you will be lucky if it's the strain closest to the first strain you caught or received a vaccine for, and unlucky if it isn't.
Finally, I understand that vaccines for specific strains still work, but they won't work as well for mutations of their strains and might not get you immunity for as long.
No wonder natural immunity is being suppressed. Having broad and long-lasting antibody and T-cell immunity is bad for profits and continuing this state of affairs.
Since you've continued to use HN for ideological battle and ignored our request to stop, I've banned the account. Regardless of your views, comments here need to be higher-quality than this sort of shallow, inflamed stuff.
You think eg. my local belgian government has a vested interest in butchering its own economy so some american drug company can make profits?
Or is it more likely that they're pushing vaccines over natural immunity because the former doesn't involve furthering spread and risk of hospitalization as a prerequisite for getting it?
It's being suppressed by information outlets of all kinds. Authorities in the U.S. have admitted they need to "look into it", even though we're already in this about two years now.
> You think eg. my local belgian government has a vested interest in butchering its own economy so some american drug company can make profits?
Yes. Politicians are corrupt, welcome to the shitty nature of human beings. They will misbehave and commit atrocities over and over again, as proven by history. I don't think we've entered a special time in history where people in power are somehow immune to corruption now. This has already happened in Australia, with that one politician stepping down because she had received money from the pharma companies. Why wouldn't more of them be in that situation?
> Or is it more likely that they're pushing vaccines over natural immunity because the former doesn't involve furthering spread and risk of hospitalization as a prerequisite for getting it?
Vaccines use one's natural immunity. Furthermore, why isn't it a solution to expand hospital care, and/or take that care to people's homes? After all, we can clearly see the vax does not eliminate the chance of landing in the hospital, and places with 90%+ vax are still seeing spikes. There is clearly a focus of pushing the vax at all costs.
> This has already happened in Australia, with that one politician stepping down because she had received money from the pharma companies.
As an Australian, I'd like to know more about this? If your referring to Gladys Berejiklian (Ex-Premier of NSW) stepping down, that had nothing to do with Big Pharma [1][2].
Politicians maybe corrupt, but our NHS (here in Blighty) most certainly is not.
Here, the NHS doctors keep asking the politicians for more money to combat Covid, and the current government whistles. (Something you will acknowledge regardless of where you sit on the political spectrum.)
Natural immunity has become a party line issues, sadly. The CDC also has done its part in shunning studies that confirm that it is at least as effective (when not more) than vaccine induced immunity, and boasting only those specific that confirm their narrative, be it nonseroconversion cases among PCR positive to controversial study with cherry picked cohorts.
Public health policy is hard, I gather, but disingenuous information (disinformation?) is a red line that public authorities should never pass (eg Iraqi WMD)
> No wonder natural immunity is being suppressed. Having broad and long-lasting antibody and T-cell immunity is bad for profits and continuing this state of affairs.
What's this based on ? Is there some R-value or Mortality ratio at which natural immunity is better ? Besides vaccines are cheap, nowehere expensive enough to put a dent in people's pockets.
Natural immunity isn't being suppressed. We learned from prior viruses that it is generally not a good idea to seek out infection.
You're hearing a lot about covid because it has a massive impact on society. I really don't think you'd say other preventative treatments are a bad thing because people profit from making them?
The US government continues to refuse to recognize naturally acquired immunity as valid. You can lose your job if you've recovered from COVID19 but do not get the vaccine. There's no reasonable excuse for doing this.
BECUASE IT ISN'T VALID
More than a third of COVID-19 infections result in zero protective antibodies
Natural immunity fades faster than vaccine immunity
Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural immunity plus vaccination
https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-i...
